To:A. A. JOFFE

Published:First published in part in 1956 inPravdaNo. 193.

      Published in full in 1959 inLenin Miscellany XXXVI.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1976,

      Moscow,Volume 45,

      pages297-298a.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet ArchiveYou may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ComradeJoffe:

Youwill find that today’s Politbureau decision (which
I enclose) largely meets your dispatch of
9/IX.[2]

Pleasebe so kind as to send me a written report with
more details.

Inaddition, as a personal request,to enable me to sort
things out in this matter, I ask you to devote special
attention (in your report or in a special annex to your
report) to the question of protection of native interests
against “Russian” (Great-Russian or colonialist)
exaggerations.

Whatis the attitude of the natives to Safarov?Facts,
facts and more facts.

Whoare the natives themselves (Safarov’s supporters)?
Names? Record? Prestige? (Facts, facts....)

Willthey he able to stand up for themselves? Is that
sure? Even against such a subtle and firm and stubborn
man as Tomsky?

Howmany of them are there?

“TheUnion of the Poor” (set up by Safarov?)—its
composition? importance? strength? role? Is it true that the
natives were “forcibly” stratified?

Cotton?Its future? Is it true that Safarov is ruining
the cotton?Facts, facts.

Thefronts in Ferghana? The Basmachi? Their attitude
to the Tomsky and the Safarov “line”? Facts and exact
decisions by Turkestan C.E.C. concerning the Basmachi?
The facts on what and when Tomsky and Safarov or their
supporters differedin this question? (Extracts from relevant
decisions, to show exactly when and on what precisely
the formal differences occurred.)

Thereare some differences on this question inside the C.C.

Moreexact information is highly important.

Ipersonallyvery muchsuspect “Tomsky’s line” (perhaps
it would be more correct to say Peters’s line? or Pravdin’s
line?etc.) of engaging in Great-Russian chauvinism, or, to
put it more correctly, in deviating in that direction.

Itis terribly important for all our
Weltpolitik[1]to win
the confidence of the natives; to win it over again and
again;to provethat we arenotimperialists, that we shallnottolerate anydeviationin that direction.

Thisis a world-wide question, and that is no
exaggeration.

Thereyou must be especially strict.

Itwill have an effect on India and the East; it is no
joke, it calls for exceptional caution.

Withcommunist greetings,Lenin

[1]Worldpolicy.—Ed.

[2]Atelegram from A. A. Joffe dated September 9, 1921, said that
the differences between M. P. Tomsky, Chairman of the
Turkestan Commission of the All-Russia C.E.C., and G. I. Safarov,
a member of the Turkestan Bureau, tended to incite hostility
between the Russians and the local population, and between
individual nationalities. On September 13, the Politbureau of the
R.C.P.(B.) Central Committee decided to discuss the question
of policy in Turkestan after receiving Joffe’s written report, and
after the Politbureau members had studied all the material.
Having discussed the work in Turkestan, on October 14, 1921, the
Politbureau appointed a new Turkestan Bureau and a Turkestan
Commission and outlined the principal tasks of Party and Soviet
government work in Turkestan. It emphasised the need for
circumspection in implementing the New Economic Policy in
Turkestan, which was to ensure the task of involving the toiling
masses in socialist construction.